The Confutation of the 13 Articles, Article 7 – Article 8
Shaxton. The ſeuenth Article.
IT is not a thynge of neceſſitie, that the Sacrament of the aultare, ſhould be miniſtered vntounto the people vnderunder boeth the kyndes of breade & wyne. And it is nont abuſe that the ſame be miniſtred to the people vnderunder the one kynde, for as muche as in euerye of boeth the kyndes, whole Chriſte, boeth body and bloude is conſeyned.
Crowley.
As the wordes of thys Article be placed they ſeme to teache that in ſome thynge ther is none abuſe, thoughe the thynge whoche ought of neceſſitie to be done: be left vndone But I wyl not greatlye ſtryue wyth you in thys matter. Idyd onelyonly thynke it good (by the way) to touch it: bicauſe you ſhuld know howe ſpttle diligence and learnynge is ſhewed in your Article. As for the meanyng of youre article: I take it to be none other, but that the robbynge of the people of one parte of the communion: is none abuſe. No mar, uaile though you be of this opinion: for you teache it to be none abuſe to take the whole from them, vſurping to your ſelfe, the thing wherof (by ryght) ye ought not to be partakers. And as it ſemeth by your negligēce in the miniſtration therof: it is agaynſte youre wyll, that you diſtribute that one parte once in the pere. Yea, a man cā gather none other by the externall ſygnes: but that the money you receyue at Eſter, is the onelye cauſe of your adminiſtratiō then. For thys you will be ſure of. The money ſhal be payed, before you wyll miniſter. And then one mans … ney is as good as an others. Paye the ſome and thē ye are al welcome. But he that hath nought to paye, muſt eyther begge, or tarye on other daye. Yet can I alowe the order of the tauerns to be much better then thys. For there a man ſhall eate his breade, and drinke hys wyne, and then cal for a rekenyng. Yea, he ſhal hauehave more for his farthynge, thē you wyll geue hym for his .ii. pence. And as you ſaye youre ſelfe, the wyne is as good in the tauecue, as when you gyue it to the people For you beſtowe not ſo muche as one …roſſynge or whiſperyng ouer it.
Marye I thynke you inyxe it wyth water to declare that ther ran boeth water and bloude out of our Sauioure Chriſtes ſyde. And as for the breade you ſaye is none, but fleſhe in the lykenes of breade.
And in the miniſtratiō therof, you ſpeake in a ſtraunge tonge (as iuglers do) bycauſe men ſhoulde thynke the wordes to be the worckers of the feate. I ſpeake theſe wordes to declare your ſacrament to be no communion, but a Romyſhe merchaundiſe. Wherfore it ſhoulde be none abuſe at all, thoughe both the parts were takē frō the people and you to. But to witholde the one parte of the cōmunion of the body and bloude of Chriſt from the people, I laye (and wylby the ayde of God prour) that it is no leſſe abuſe, thē to teach that Chriſt ſhed not his bloud to: thē.
Fyrſte we muſte knowe▪ whether it were neceſſarye for Chriſte to i…ſtitute the communion vnderunder boeth the kyndes or not. If it were neceſſarye (as I thynke you wyll not denye) then is it alſo neceſſarye, that al, as manye as ſhall be admitted to that communion: do alſo recey…e it vnderunder boeth k…ndes Othere…s were the one parte inſtituted in vayne. For other vie is there none of thys ſacramēt: but to be receyued of the faythful beleuers, to remembre the deathe of Chriſte thereby, and to certifie theyr owne conſciences of the part they hauehave with him in al hys deſerninges, & of the couplinge togyther of al the fayethful mēbres of Chriſtes churche into one body by faith. But if you be ſo ſhā les, that you wyl deny that Chriſt did neceſſarilie inſtituted the cōmmion in boeth the kyndes: then wyll I ſaye vntounto you that he could not otherwyſe hauehave declared vntounto vsus the miſterye of hys …leſhe and bloud, thē by boeth the kyndes. For what other thyng is the miſtery of the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt: then that lyke as the body lyueth by breade and brothe, recey…ed by the mouthe, ſo doeth the ſoule lyue by the merites and deſe…ynges of Chriſte in the fleſhe, receyued by faieth, as by the mouth of the ſoule. And thys is it that Chriſte ſpeaketh of. Iohn .vi. Except ye eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man and drynke his bloude, you ſhal hauehave no life in you. So that if he woulde by viſible ſignes declare vntounto vsus, that his fleſhe & bloude are the neceſſarie fode of oure foules: no remedye, he muſte nedes do it by the neceſſary fode of oure bodyes. Seynge therefore that the broth or lycoure, is as neceſſarye for the ſuſtinaunce of our bodyes, as the breade is: it could not be but neceſſary to inſtitute this Sacrament or miſterye, in boeth. Well now I am ſure you wyll not denye the neceſſitie of inſtitutynge the communion in boeth the kyndes. But thus perhappes you wyll ſay (wyth your ſcholmaiſters) that as the Apoſtels (who onelye were preſente at the inſtitution therof) were prieſtes: ſo is it onelye neceſſarye, that prieſtes receyue it in boeth the kyndes. For the wordes of the ſupper, beynge ſpoken to the Apoſtles: muſt extend no farther then to theyr ſucceſſours.
If al the Apoſtles were prieſtes, then is it like that the ordre of knaue traitour prieſtes hath bene deriued, euen frome the Apoſtles tyme. For there was one amonge them that was a kna…e & a traitour And therupōyo… ground (I am ſure) that a kna…e prieſt may celebrate & receyue the ſacramēt in both the kyndes, bycauſe he is the ſucceſſoure of one of the Apoſtles whyche was a knaue. Bu… nowe to the purpoſe, That all the Apoſtles were prieſtes, I de…. For Iudas (whoe was no membre of Chriſte) coulde not be a prieſte. Here if you wyll ſaye, that then manye of oure prieſtes at thys daye be no prieſtes, bycauſe ſome of theym be membres of the deuyl: I wyl not greatly ſtycke to graūt you tha… concluſion. For if you ſpeake of a prieſte, whyche is ſignified by thys worde Sacerdos: I ſay the church of Chriſt knoweth none other prieſthode, but that whych …s ſpoken of in the fyrſte of the reuelations.
And of that ordre is none that is not the tru membre of Chriſte. And ſuche one offereth hys owne membres, an acceptable ſacrifice to God. And eueryevery one that offereth this ſacrifice, is a prieſte of thys ordre: thoughe he be neyther ſhauen nor annoynted. And ſuch prieſtes were al the apoſtles (Iudas only excepted) & they onelye are the apoſt…es ſucceſſours that offer this ſacrifice. And therfore ought they a… ▪ & they only to receiue both the kindes of the communion For amongeſt other thē theſe, can ther be no communion of Chriſtes bodye and bloude, though they deuoure neuer ſo manye ſacramentes, to theyr owne condemnation But if you ſpeake of a prieſte which is ſignified by this word preſbiter, that is to ſay an elder: I wyll ſay your prieſts for the moſt part are elderly inough and ſo old muſty barters, that they wil hold no newe wyne. And ſo are they not the ſucceſſoures of the Apoſtles (vnleſſe it were of the Apoſtle Iudas the traytoure) for they were elders, able to gouern the people with Godly do…trine and enſample of lyfe. I cō clude therefore, that as manye of your prieſtes as are not the true membres of Chriſte are as good prieſtes, as Iudas was apoſtle, and do God as good ſeruiſe in ſellynge hys Sacramentes, as Iudas dyd in ſellyng his ſonne. Wel, let vsus returne to the words of the ſupper, to proue whether they wil birefe vsus of the one parte or n…. The wordes ſpoken of the breade, are theſe. Take ye, eate ye, thys is my bodye whych is broken for you. And of the cup is ſayed. Dryuke eueryevery one of you of thys, for thys is my bloude in the new teſtament, which ſhalbeſhed for manye into remiſſiō of ſinnes▪ Now tel me if any of the true mēbres of Chriſt, may lefully be de feated of any of theſe parts. If ye may wyth hold any part frō thē: it muſt be the bread ra ther thē the wine. For it is ſaied of the wine. Drynke eueryevery one of you of thys. Euen as though he would hauehave ſaid. Take hede you be not defeated of thys parte. There ſhall come bribours, that ſhall withholde it frō a great nūbre of your ſucceſſours, ſaying that I ſpake theſe wordes to you onelyonly & to ſuche as ſhoulde beare the name of my miniſters.
And therfore they heynge none of youre ſucceſſours, and yet boeſtynge them ſelues to be your onelyonly ſucceſſours: ſhall vſurpe to them ſelues, thys part of your communion. But teach you in al the world, that the wordes whych I ſpeake vntounto you, I ſpeake vntounto as many as ſhal trulye profeſſe my name. Drynke you eueryevery one of this.
Wherfore I conclude, that it is a thynge of neceſſitie that the communion be miniſtered in boeth the kyndes, to all the fayethfull membres of Chriſt. And that if is the an abuſe to miniſter it to anye of them, vnderunder one kynde onelye.
But, becauſe I perceiue whēſe this great erroure of yours ſpringeth, I ſhal ſomwhat ſpeake therof. For aſmuch as (ſaye you) vnderunder eyther of boeth the partes, is conteined whole Chriſt body and bloud: it muſt nedes folow, that it is none abuſe to miniſter to the people vnderunder one kynde onelyonly.
An aſſertion worthy a fleſhly philoſopher ſauourynge more of Ariſtotle thē of Chriſt. For if it were graunted that the ſacramentall breade were turned into a lyueynge bodye, then woulde Ariſtotle ſaye, that there muſt nedes be bloud in the ſame or els ſome other humoure of the ſame nature to ſupply the office of bloude. Hetherto Ariſtotle taketh youre parte. But when you ſaye, that in the bloude muſte nedes be whole Chriſte boeth bodie and bloude: there Ariſtotle leaueth you. For he is not of the opinion that the whole ought to be preſente wyth euerye part, though he affyrme the partes to be neceſſarylye preſente wyth the whole. But if you wyll hearken to hym in all hys aſſertions: he wyll teache you, that in euerie naturall bodie muſt nedes be a fourme, quantie, and qualitie, to repreſēt it to oure eyes. And that we muſt deſerne and knowe the bodies one from an other, by theyr quantities, qualities, & fourme that they be of. But I doubt not you wyl forſake Ariſtotle in thys point wherefore I ſhall deſyre you to forſake hym in the other alſo. I woulde wyſhe you either to be an whole diuine, other eis to giuegive ouer diuitie for all togyther, and become a mere Philoſopher. For al moūgrels are abhominable before God. I could ſpend much time wyth you in thys matter, but that I thynke it tyme loſte to braule any longer with your beaſtiye reaſon. But briefelye I ſhall conclude admoniſhynge the fayethfull reader, to marke well the ſure foundation of youre Article, to be ſet vponupon Ariſtotles grounde, and yet contrarye to hys mynde. And wyth howe ſmall circumſpection you wryt, when you ſaye that the whole Chriſt is conteyned vnderunder eyther of boeth the kindes, when you name nought els there, but bodye & bloude. As though whole Chriſte were nought els.
Shaxton. The eyght Article.
IT is no derogation to the vertue of the maſſe, thoughe the prieſte receyue the ſacramente alone, and none other receyue it wyth hym.
Crowley.
In dede it is no derogation to the vertue of the maſſe, that the prieſte onelyonly receyueth the Sacramente. Yea, it is the onelyonly vpholdinge, ſtrenghthynge, & defence of the maſſe, when the prieſte eateth and drinketh vp all hymſelfe. For if he ſhoulde diſtribute it to anye other and make theim partakers wyth hym: it ſhoulde not then be a maſſe (whyche name cometh from the market of Rome) but a communion. And if you wyll ſaye (as I ſuppoſe your meanynge is in thys Article) that it is no derogation to the vertue of the communion of the bodye & bloud, of Chriſt that the prieſte receyueth it alone: then muſt I nedes ſaye that it is ſo greate derogation to the vertue thereof, that it is therby declared to be no communiō at al. For the whole ſtrength and vertue therof, is to ſignifie vntounto vsus the death of Chriſte, our deliueraunce by the ſame, and the wonderfull knittynge togyther of all the receyuers therof into one bodye: by the faith in Chriſt, the head of the ſame body. And this vertue hath it not whē it is receiued of the prieſt onelyonly, neyther can it hauehave. For the diſtributinge of it amonge manye, and the commune receyuynge of it, are the thynges wher…n is declared vntounto the receiuers that the body and bloud of Chriſt were not the priece of one mans ſinnes onelye, but of manye, euen as manye as ſhould certaynlye put theyr truſte in hym, and that the ſame b…leuers are thorow beliefe in hym become membres of one bodye euen as the breade whereof they be parteners is but one loffe or pieſe of bread made of manye grains of corne. The receyuyng of the prieſt therefore is aſmuch derogation to the cōmunion, as the vſe of one cōtrary can be to an other.
Neyther can blacke diſtayne whyte, more then the maſſe diſtayneth the communion.
For to make that thynge priuate, whiche of it owne nature is commune: is to take the ſame thing cleane away and to putte the contrarye in hys place.